Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Migration Network

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Migration Network

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, unsourced, and not notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that the nomination is ill-considered. Firstly to argue that because it is a factual description it is promotional would be to criticise most articles in Wikipedia, including many classed as good. It is no more promotional than most geographical articles for example. Secondly, there are sources given; I'm sure there could be more but perhaps the nominator could point to something that he believes incorrect? Unless he is actually challenging the underlying veracity of the article the mere fact that every statement is not individually supported by a source is not a ground for deletion. Lastly, there is a question of notability. But this is an inter-governmental agency. There are pages of references to the EMN on a Google search, on many different websites, many of which describe what it does as well as aspects of its work. There are books published by it and references in other publications. The claim must be that they do not count if they are in some way connected with the subject, ie from participant governments, academics working in the field, and so forth. But the same logic would rule out most academic topics. We do not exclude science articles because the only people discussing the subject are all academics working in the field, institutions they work for, and publications entirely funded by subscriptions from those sources. Wikipedia is not intended solely to be a list of things on the Discovery Channel and celebrity shows. --AJHingston (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NGO. But reliable references must be added! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too promotional and jargon-laden to be edited into an encyclopedic article without complete rewriting from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.